To govern, is to choose
This was the famous and ironic motto of French diplomats of the 17th and 18th centuries. As they saw it, in an anarchical international world, choosing priorities is tough. The rulers of national states, even those who appear strong and privileged, often find themselves forced to make hard choices. It may be better, then, to consider at an early stage how much one can take on. An incoming prince, or new head of a parliamentary government, might be advised not to undertake too many reforms on the home front, while also committing to hunting foreign demons abroad. A decision to withdraw from, or at least significantly reduce, an inherited policy could actually strengthen the leadership, by giving more space and energy to push through other ambitious plans. Pick your battles, and your terrain.
This general and cautious principle of not fighting on too many fronts at the same time has been much in my mind during the first year of the Obama administration. Does the president really believe he can achieve major reforms in healthcare, education, climate change, national finances and taxes, and win in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time? What if the division of Washington's energies leads to the sad result of being strong nowhere, and weak – or compromised, or only half-achieving, or even failing – everywhere?